Atlas shrugs, Atlas starves. The End. The most fatal flaw in Ayn Rand's book.

[Zalatix]

When John Galt and his merry band leave their "rapacious socialist kleptocracies" for their secret Colorado enclave of innovative paradise, long before Bioshock happens, they starve to death.

Who's going to sell, much less send them any food? If society is in the horrible shape that Ayn Rand's story leaves them in, the food is going to be consumed locally. No one's going to have the time, resources or inclination to send it to Galt's Gulch. Anyone who does try, will probably be robbed and killed, or beset upon by the MANY enemies Galt will make after issuing his Great Manifesto.

Or the food he gets will be poisoned.

The End.

[wtmusic]

1. Only the last one would starve

After their idealist fantasy is consumed by infighting, the rest would consume each other.

[MilesColtrane]

6. Yep, like a pack of rabid, cannibal weasels

[blindpig]

2. illustrated.....

[img][/img]

[Zalatix]

4. Isn't it ironic? Ayn Rand fled from the tyranny of Josef Stalin

only to help accelerate the tyranny of Capitalism. Where Stalin killed millions in gulags, Ayn Rand's legacy would be mass starvation by poverty if she got her way.

[blindpig]

5. I would dispute your characterization of Stalin.

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

While not a saint he was not the devil that Nazi/capitalist propaganda has portrayed either.

[Zalatix]

7. Disputing Stalin's mass murders? Huh?!!

Where do I start?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/margolisholocaust.html

Go ask the Polish who were around back in the day who they feared most.

[tritsofme]

10. Uncle Joe was just a swell guy.

[Ikonoklast]

11. He purged the party of anyone not a cult of Stalin member.

I guess all tyrants have apologists.

Stalin was a mass murderer.

Even some of those who *were* Stalin worshippers were murdered.

[Zalatix]

12. He killed his own supporters? Interesting.

What's scary is even now, some people in Russia are defending Stalin's actions. Not even bothering to deny them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051871/Stalins-mass-murders-entirely-rational-says-new-Russian-textbook-praising-tyrant.html

[blindpig]

15. Concerning Stalin...

(This post is in response to posts #7, 10, 11.)

Josef Stalin was the elected leader of the Soviet Union, under the precepts of Democratic Centralism. What is that? This is from the Greek Communist Party, KKE:

The structure and operation of the CPG is based on the principle of democratic centralism. Democratic centralism ensures the Party the ability, through broad, free discussion, to generalise the views and experiences of Party members, of non-members and of the working people, to arrive at collective decisions and at the same time to act with unity, resoluteness and discipline in implementing them. In application of this principle, th creation and activity of organised groups within the Party is not permitted. This would undermine its unity, its democratic operation and its effective action.
The main components of democratic centralism are: democracy within the party and centralism.

Democracy within the party means:
Equality of all Party members with respect to their rights and obligations. Ensuring the right to express their opinions freely and responsibly on all Party issues, in accordance with the Statutes. The electability and removability of leading bodies or members of these bodies, rom the Bureau of the BO up to the Central Committee. Regular and extraordinary accountability to the organisations and Conferences that elected them. Systematic information of party organisations about their decisions. Ensuring the personal contribution, initiative and responsibility of all Party members in making and implementing decisions. Ensuring all Party members’ right to vote and stand for election. Initiatives by all party organisations to solve their local issues independently and responsibly within the framework of the Party’s policy and general positions.

Centralism means:
Bringing the operation and activity of all Party organisations under one single centre, the Central Committee, which is the supreme organ during the period between congresses. That decisions made by higher leading bodies must be implemented by lower bodies, Party organisations and Party members. Conscientious Party discipline where the minority submits to the will of the majority. In the event of disagreement, those who disagree are obliged to implement the decision made by the majority.

http://inter.kke.gr/Documents/docstatutes/docstat-9-13/view?searchterm=democratic centralism

So let us dismiss this talk of personal dictatorship.

Where did this accusation originate? In the sour grapes of Leon Trotsky. His faction lost the election because while people admired Trotsky they trusted Stalin to get the job done. Trotsky then began to organize an extra-party effort to seize power from the elected Central Committee. He did this poorly, his abilities at 'people skills' and intrigue were less than some of his other qualities. He conspired with some real dipshits, some of whom were so reckless and treacherous as to make contact with the capitalist powers. This conspiracy was uncovered easily.

Were there arrests, imprisonments and executions? Yes, the Revolution must be defended. Were these thing done to the extent commonly propounded by Western propagandists, certainly not. Who were those affected? Primarily Party members, which stands to reason, this was a Party matter, see above. Were Ukrainians particularly targeted as has been alleged? Nope, in fact less so than other nationalities. For recent scholarship, statistical analysis of the period, look here:

http://www.campin.me.uk/Politics/purging-stalin.txt

Included therein is analysis of of the Famine and why the capitalist/Ukrainian nationalist claims about it are false.

Were there excesses, injustices, crimes committed in the name of state? Yes there were. Did this amount to 'genocide', 'worse than Hitler' and the rest of that rot? Definitely not. We might refer to the imperialism, the mass murders and official racism of the US and make similar, and more just, claims.

As for the Poles, their pre-war leadership were fascist anti-Semites who were positioning themselves to regain power. Did the Soviets crush them, damn skippy.

The Soviet Union was the first great experiment in building a large scale socialist society, and this done on the skimpiest of shoestrings. This experiment brought the greatest rise in the standard of living in history to the masses of the Soviet Union. It was a system which absorbed everything the greatest military machine in history threw at them, suffering the loss of many major cities, most of it industry and horrendous loss of life and then crushed them. That there were mistakes, betrayals, losses of focus and other errors might be expected in a thing so new and untried. This cannot be denied. But we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater, we learn from those who went before and standing on the shoulders of giants we'll do better next time. We must, capitalism is untenable for a whole raft of reasons. The choice of socialism or barbarism is more stark than ever before.

[Ikonoklast]

16. Murder in the name of political Purity has its defenders, still.

Amazing.


Imperial Russia under another name, stealing resources from vassal states.

Every failed religion has some devotees who never got the message, it seems.

[blindpig]

17. Got nothin', huh? n/t

[Ikonoklast]

18. You want me to agree that killing you political enemies is accepted?

Sorry, that's your religion, I don't subscribe to it.

[blindpig]

22. No

I want you to back up your contentions, if you can. Elsewise you better be looking in the mirror if you're going to be throwing 'religion' around.

[Ikonoklast]

26. You don't accept anything that goes against your version of reality.

Like many of those True Believers whose last words shouted out as they were blindfolded and stood against the wall, "Long Live Stalin!"

Stalin apologists who never lived throught the terror of his regime are to be laughed at.

[blindpig]

29. Like I thought. n/t

[Zalatix]

42. Ooooh, declaring victory. News flash, no one else is raising your hand in victory.

[yellowcanine]

23. "Josef Stalin was the elected leader of the Soviet Union,..." Not really.

Stalin was elected General Secretary of the Communist Party in 1922. At the time this position was mainly administrative and disciplinary with the role of maintaining party membership. It wasn't until after Lenin's death in 1924 that Stalin became the Soviet leader by eliminating or neutralizing opposition within the party. There was nothing "elected" about it. Democratic Centralism was a methodology originally crafted by Lenin to enforce party decisions - "freedom of discussion, unity of action." Yes Stalin used it to help consolidate his power but it is a perversion of what most people would consider "elected" to say that Stalin was the elected leader of the Soviet Union.

It is quite a mistake to fix all of the blame for the bad reputation of Stalin on Trotsky. Lenin himself was very critical of Stalin and suggested that the party find a way to remove Stalin from the post of General Secretary.

Reasonable people can disagree about how much Stalin's industrialization and agricultural policies contributed to the famines of the 1930's but it is quite clear from history that neither collectivized agriculture nor centralized industrial planning worked very well for the Soviet Union.

As for defeating Hitler, many would say that it was in spite of Stalin rather than a result of his leadership. He purged the Red Army of its leadership in 1937-1938 which likely weakened the Soviet military greatly just prior to WWII. His pact with Hitler in 1939 gave Hitler breathing room to attack the West and gain combat experience which the German army used to great effect in attacking the Soviet Union in 1941. It also lulled the Soviets into a false complacency which may have contributed to their horrendous losses early on in Operation Barbarossa. The defeat of Hitler on the Eastern Front probably had more to do with Hitler's miscalculations, geography, and the character of the people of the Soviet Union and their access to natural resources, as well as material support from the Western Allies, than Stalin's leadership.

[blindpig]

27. If the Party membership was unhappy with Stalin they could have removed him.

Yet there was a party congress well before Trotsky began his tricks. And of course the Nazis and capitalists were responsible for most of the propaganda but Trotsky gave them invaluable ammunition.

If Soviet economic planning was so bad how did they manage to build 50,000 tanks, more than doubling the output of the German industrial giant? And this with their industry in tatters after the first 6 months.

I don't think that Superman could have stopped Barbarossa in the first few months. While German equipment was not so much better than anyone else their tactics, strategy, organization and training were state of the art. I would especially emphasize training and experience. The Germans began training for the next war in the early 20's, draftees trained for 2 years and then one years service, after that they were in the reserves for 20 years. This gave them a huge number of well-trained troops from the git. As noted, couple that with the experience gained in the campaigns in Poland, France and the Balkans and you've got a tremendous advantage. The loss of that experienced personnel to Soviet forces(The same can be seen in the Luftwaffe's fortunes after the Battle of Britain.) was certainly a factor in the Nazi's declining fortunes. The pact was an unfortunate necessity, if it gave Hitler breathing room it also gave that to the Soviet Union. Stalin's primary effect in the war was that of a indomitable, resolute leader. Given the horrendous early losses this cannot be underestimated.

[yellowcanine]

30. Yeah right. Party members who tried to remove Stalin did not stay around very long.

As for Soviet economic planning, central planning works pretty well for producing tanks, not so well for consumer goods. It is in the latter area that the Soviet economy faltered. Not only that but the Soviet Union had more than twice the population of Germany in 1939 (190 million to 80 million) and more natural resources.

And I think you validated my point about who really benefited the most from the 1939 pact. A big part of war is psychology. Whatever Stalin's motives may have been in terms of buying time, by signing the pact he created complacency in the Soviet Union. The main effect of the pact was to guarantee Hitler a one-front war in 1939. Also, the often forgotten earlier economic agreement meant that the Soviets supplied Hitler with material support which helped Germany circumvent the British blockade. Thus the Soviets strengthened the military which would be turned on them in 1941. Not only that, if the Soviet Union was such an industrial giant and Stalin such a great leader, why were they so ill prepared in 1939? Certainly they had to know that a Hitler led Germany coveted land and resources in the Soviet Union. But yet Stalin was weakening the Red Army leading up to WWII rather than preparing.

I do not question that the contribution of the Soviet Union to the defeat of Hitler was invaluable. But most of the credit should go the the people of the Soviet Union rather than Stalin.

[blindpig]

32. Resources yes, but yet largely undeveloped.

So much to do, so little time. Given the lose of industrial base at the onset I'd say their preformance was nothing less than fantastic.

The Soviets prepared as best as able. Got to also consider that they were facing the possibility of a two front war themselves with large Japanese troop consentrations in their east, there had been clashes. Again, the German military was the 70's Pittsburg Steelers of their time.

Of course the most credit goes goes to the Soviet people, only a fool would argue otherwise.

If Stalin's detractors had worked within democratic centralism none of that would have come down and perhaps Trotsky or someone else might have replaced Stalin by normal means. As it was their intrigues started the whole affair.

[yellowcanine]

34. I get it. You think Stalin would have behaved like a democrat if everyone else had.

No real evidence for that but ok. We will never know in any case so we have to go by what we do know about Stalin and there is precious little to indicate that he ever let go of any power once he had it.

[DevonRex]

49. That is untrue. They would have been killed first. Nt

[Fool Count]

51. "...neither collectivized agriculture nor centralized industrial planning worked very well

for the Soviet Union"? Really? If it wasn't for the rapid industrialization based on centralized
industrial planning and financed via collectivized agriculture there would be no USSR past
1941, as the backwards peasant country, which Russia was until the industrialization and
collectivization started in 1928, would have crumbled under attack from Nazi Germany in
a couple of months. Stalin's policies, while painful for many Russians, most definitely saved
USSR, and quite possibly the world too, from German domination. Based on that alone, I would
say that those policies worked not just "very well" but spectacularly well for the Soviet Union
and the rest of the world.

[yellowcanine]

70. In the long run, no, neither did. But it begs the question doesn't it?

Of whether Stalin's brutal methods were needed to modernize the Soviet Union. And whether more could actually have been accomplished with less coercion and more democracy? Isn't it possible that different leadership of the Soviet Union in 1924 and onward could have accomplished what Stalin did and much more by adjusting communist orthodoxy? I think so. Look at China. They made adjustments to the communist economic system and have been successful while the Soviet Union collapsed. And I am not excusing the excesses of the Chinese Communists by any means - there was plenty of coercion and still is, but it it is indisputable that they have been more successful in building a modern economy. It took them a long time, yes, and maybe they learned from the mistakes of the Soviet Union but nevertheless they have succeeded where the Soviets failed. Why is that?

[Fool Count]

71. Most exercises in "what if" alternative history end up being baseless,

if fun, belletristic. But this is one of those rare cases when the answer is very clear and unambiguous:
No, there was no other way to modernize the USSR, and yes, it would have been inevitably destroyed
by the Nazis should it fail to modernize. It was clear to anyone in the late 20s that Hitler would come to
power in Germany and attack USSR - it was literally written into his program. It was also clear that
Russia had only about a decade for that and had to rely exclusively on internal sources of capital.
Did Chinese modernization happen in 10 years? Was it not based almost entirely on foreign investment?
Was China under any kind of external existential threat while doing it?

Who would have invested in the lone socialist country in the 1930-s when the capitalist world was
consumed by the Great Depression? That is even an easier question to answer - no one would.
Stalin had to extract the capital (and do it at an unconscionable rate) from the only productive sector
of Soviet economy - agriculture. That's why collectivization became a necessity. That's why it faced
real and stiff opposition both within the Party and in the society overall. That's why this opposition had
to be suppressed so violently and undemocratically. There was simply no time for any other nonsense.
The cold war liberal critics of "Stalinism" either don't understand the history or simply hate socialism so
much that they would really prefer Nazi victory in WWII. I suggest they consider another alternative history -
pre-industrial but "democratic" USSR falling to Hitler's Germany with all its resources and Lebensraum.
Sure, you may not care about consequences of that for the Soviet people, but think about how different
your own history would have been then.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. "Were there arrests, imprisonments and executions? Yes, the Revolution must be defended."

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Try saying this shit about the victims of the Holocaust and you'd recieve a very just and rightful beatdown on this site. It should be no different with people who try to deny/justify other genocides as well.

I have an aunt and an uncle who spent over 20 years in Siberia for no other reason than the fact their father was a Ukrainian Catholic priest. Try saying this shit to their face, asshole.

And thanks for wholly giving assholish conservatives false ammo for examples as to how liberals supposedly admire Stalin. Thanks a bunch.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. "the sour grapes of Leon Trotsky" - guess an ice pick solved that sour grapes problem, huh?

What's next, Pol Pot as misunderstood genius?

[Zalatix]

41. You've got Russians out there admitting Stalin was a mass murderer - and defending it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051871/Stalins-mass-murders-entirely-rational-says-new-Russian-textbook-praising-tyrant.html

[dionysus]

47. "standing on the shoulders of giants we'll do better next time." you can stand on stalin's shoulders

and hope for another USSR all you want.. you'll be doing it by yourself.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. Stalin was one of the most brutal dictators in world history.

He intentionally starved to death millions of Ukrainians during the 1930s.

I had family members deported to Siberia because of Stalin. My mother's family would have been deported as well (if not worse) had they not fled in the middle of WWII.

The only reason that Stalin doesn't always get the attention Hitler does in terms of genocidial dictators was because Hitler's genocide was in your face and militarized. Stalin's genocide was passed off to look more natural.

I really don't care what one's opinion on Marxist economic theory is, pro or con. That doesn't bother me. But Sovietism was brutal and demeaning towards human rights and dignity, plaind and simple. And one's opinion on Marxist theory doesn't give them the right to whitewash Stalin's "accomplishments."

[Warren DeMontague]

36. you HAVE to be joking.

Sorry, there are some people who have been dealt a raw hand by History- Stalin is not one of them. He was an extremely effective mass murderer.

[BreweryYardRat]

40. Millions of dead Ukrainians would disagree with you.

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Hundreds of thousands of political prisoners who were crammed into cattle cars and shipped to Siberia would disagree with you. Especially those few survivors who didn't die of starvation/dehydration, or get dragged out and shot on the railroad sidings, or get worked/frozen/starved in the gulags.

One of Stalin's sons, who died in a Nazi POW camp when Stalin refused to make a prisoner exchange, would disagree with you.

I've spoken with survivors of Stalin's regime, who lost family members to it.

I assure you, that man was just as evil as Hitler.

[DevonRex]

52. Amen to that. He drove Ukranians away from

communism with his brutality there.

[dionysus]

43. oh jesus...

first time i've seen someone on DU defending stalin...

oh comrade...

[DevonRex]

48. OMG. He was evil.

There was a lot of anti-communist propaganda that was blatantly false. But Stalin was a cold-blooded mass murderer.

The sad part is that the Russian people were all painted that way and so was communism.

[Blue_Tires]

8. that never gets old, lol

[dotymed]

3. I (mistakenly) rented the movie recently.

It was the most idiotic and sociopathic thing I have seen for a while. Imagine America more worried about it's citizens than "rewarding" the wealthy for their "ingenuity."
America used to have truly altruistic citizens who were more concerned with others, than themselves. Jonas Salk comes to mind.
Currently our entire culture is selfish beyond belief. Just realizing that politicians who were considered R\W a few decdes ago, would now be cosidered Socialists (ewww) is really something to think about. Socialism has acquired a a terrible stigma due to the propaganda of sociopaths and the MSM that they control.
What is so telling about this is the actual opinions of the majority of Americans. What "our" government dictates is the opinion of the greedy top 5% (or so), while the polls clearly show that public sentiment is entirely against those rules. We must take our government and give it to the people. America is one of the few "civilized" countries whose citizens are afraid of it's government instead of the government fearing the citizens. We must change this now.

GO OWS!

[Ikonoklast]

9. They wouldn't have lived long enough to starve.

Lacking numerical superiority, their enclave would have been over-run by armed hordes willing to die in order to take whatever resources were stored there.

Siege warfare seldom ends well for those in redoubt.

[Hissyspit]

13. It's a stupid book.

[USA_1]

14. Ayn Rand: Antichrist

Antichrist, materialist, pervert, hypocrite. Biggest political piece of shit anywhere. Had she been a liberal the right wing would have attacked her to no end.

[yellowcanine]

19. Not to mention, not that good of a writer either. Mediocre at best.

Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn or even Pasternak she was not. Even Michener with his cardboard characters told a better tale.

[hifiguy]

21. You are too kind.

I read a lot of Rand in my early-mid 20s. That isn't writing, it's typing.

[Monk06]

50. Alluding to Truman Capote's withering criticism of Kerouac. Nicely played.

How could ending a novel with a delirious soliloquy running 52 pages no less, be considered bad writing?

That isn't bad writing that is reader abuse.

[treestar]

20. But they are the brilliant ones

They would find a way to grow their own food. At least, that was Ayn Rand's theory. The rest of us plebeians would starve without them to show us how to do things.

In reality they probably would all kill each other on that island, wanting to be top dog - they would realize they need the plebeians too, after all.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. So, you have never been to Colorado. To bad

it is really nice there.


I have never read any Any Rand, and have no intention to ever do so, but I can tell you that living off the land in Colorado is more than just possible. I lived in and around Vail for over 10 years and you can take my word for it, food would not be a problem for anyone who can hunt and/or fish.

Did native Americans starve when they lived in the mountains just because people would not sell or deliver them food? Nope!


Why not focus on all the actual flaws in the book and not make something up?

[Zalatix]

33. I don't care where you are at, if you're not a farmer and no one sells you food you will starve

John Galt was not a farmer. He wouldn't know one lick about living off the land.

He and his pals would starve.

[Motown_Johnny]

53. that is just wrong, sorry

If you consider yourself unable to survive then that is specific to yourself. Any reasonably intelligent and physically able person could live off the land in the Colorado of the late 1800s (presumably the time the novel is set it) if reasonably equipped.

You might end up eating lots of animal flesh and berries but you would survive. Gardening isn't that hard either and most anyone could supplement their diet fairly easily without being an actual farmer.


You might think you came up with some brilliant idea that nobody else in history had ever thought of, that these guys would starve. Sorry, the reason nobody else came up with it is that it in no way resembles reality.

[stevenleser]

58. In some ways I agree but in some I disagree. They key is your term "reasonably equipped"

I lived in Colorado for almost three years. There IS an overabundance of fish and wildlife. Still, what does reasonably equipped mean if permanently cut off from the rest of the world. The Indians (american aborigines) could survive because their culture taught things like manufacture of bow and arrows, spears, etc., and hunting methods were constantly taught and shared.

How well would CEOs and other capitalist industrialists survive? They could have brought some guns and ammo with them, but that all runs out. When it ran out, what would they use to capture and kill the animals. Knives? Improvised spears? Unless you are an expert hunter, trying to kill your average ungulate with a knife or spear is a daunting task. The guides on my recent trip to Africa made it clear that some of these non-carnivorous animals are quite dangerous and kill more people than the predators. A weaponless adult male human is no match for an adult male deer and I am not sure how much advantage a knife or spear gives someone who doesn't have a fair amount of skill.

Even fishing tackle has a surprisingly short lifespan if heavily used. Do you think these guys could have manufactured their own?

As far as gardening, where would they get the seed? Where would they get the tools to cultivate? Any amount of a harvest that would make a difference would require tools.

It's by no means impossible that they could have survived, but it is also by no means a fait accompli.

[Motown_Johnny]

59. traps don't need ammo, neither does fishing gear

especially nets



Killing a thousand pound elk would not be an every day thing and you wouldn't go through that much ammo. Checking your rabbit or beaver traps is a different story.


You bring some seeds with you, a few chickens and a rooster along with a couple axes and a few knives and you should be able to manufacture enough crude tools to garden with.


The idea that people who have planned to go live in the wilderness won't bring what they need with them seems foolish. This story is set in a time when the west was still being settled (unless I am mistaken) the skills and equipment needed to settle in an area would not be uncommon.

[stevenleser]

62. I dont know how to make or place traps or nets. why would they?

I think the timeline is 1950s not late 1800s. Few of the people mentioned seem to have much of any knowledge of the outdoors. Certainly gentrified city folk like Rearden, Dagny Taggert and Francisco D'Ancona wouldn't be aware of how to survive in the wilderness. I doubt if Mulligan or the judge or Galt would either. The oil guy who was rom the Midwest might have some knowledge of that kind of stuff, but that is only a maybe.

Traps and nets break. Placing them also requires some basic knowledge of the behavior of the animals.

The behavior of.these folks in Galts gulch as described when Dagny accidentally discovers the place does not.suggest.that they are doing what one would expect. In.that situation, you would expect that gathering the.necessary food would be a major.preoccupation of.the community. The.reverse is.the case. That community acts.as if.food is.readily.available. its an unrealistic.fantasy.

[Motown_Johnny]

65. you seem to be grasping at straws

The fact that they would have more modern equipment at their disposal makes their survival more likely, not less.


I said in an earlier post that I never read this crap and I never intend to. I don't know any of the details. I just think that if any group of people decided to go off and start over then they would prepare themselves in such a way that they could survive.

The OP suggests that this is just not possible. I think it is not just possible but likely.

I agree with your statement that gathering food would be a major preoccupation of the community, but what else do they have to do?

[Zalatix]

66. Have you ever watched "Survivor"?

You see how badly people fail on that show? That's how bad it's going to be when most city slickers try to survive without a supermarket around... even in Colorado.

You keep saying it's easy for anyone to do. I'm saying show me, don't tell me. I don't see anyone here believing you.

[Motown_Johnny]

67. only the first season

I never said it was easy, please reread my posts, the word easy is not in any of them. I only have one other person responding to my posts and that person admits it is possible.


You seem to think it is impossible and that is the attitude I take issue with. Any group of people who decide to make a move like that are going to prepare for it. Unlike "survivor" where you are not allowed to bring items which would help you survive. The premise there is more like a plane crash and you have nothing with you to help you survive.

Once again you have shown that you just have not thought this through. Comparing a TV show which does not allow people to prepare with a premise where people would not only be able to prepare but would not need to begin until they are prepared.


You really should just let this drop. Your idea that people can't live without a supermarket neglects the vast majority of human history.

[Zalatix]

68. I should let this drop? Because who said so?

I didn't say it was impossible. I said a lot of people wouldn't survive if they had to go survive in the wild. Most people wouldn't even know what to bring.

You keep saying that most people would know basic survival skills. I want to see proof of this.

[stevenleser]

69. You are the one who should let this drop.There is a reason the military teaches survival techniques

to pilots in case they are downed behind enemy lines and a fair portion of that has nothing to do with evading the enemy, but getting enough food to eat, etc. Making the assumption that people are going to figure these things out on their own is a BIG and I mean B-I-G assumption.

Assumption #1 - These folks would even know what kinds of things they need to bring with them.

Assumption #2 - These folks would know how to properly use the things they brought

Assumption #3 - These folks would know how to (and have the proper tools and resources to) repair the things that wore out or broke or manufacture new ones (yeah right).

AND we are only talking about food. Atlas Shrugged nicely glosses over how in hades in the first place that all of the 'strikers' buildings got built in Galt's Gulch. Fine, we will ignore that for now, that still leaves clothing. I've traveled a fair amount in my life. I'm usually good at researching the proper clothes to take, it is by no means easy to figure that all out either.

Again you have to remember that this place is supposed to be a secret. All of these multimillionaire captains of industry would have to somehow outfit themselves with all of this survivor gear without raising suspicion and transport that survivor gear to the proper place. That is ANOTHER issue that is glossed over. How are you going to get all of the building, farming, hunting, clothing, etc., materials to an uninhabited part of Colorado without raising any eyebrows or any of the truckers remembering that, hey, the CEO of Rearden metals and the judge from wherever are moving all of this stuff to Colorado.

I dont think you are thinking this through as to all of the issues and obstacles. Its not grasping at straws so much as thinking it through to all the fine details. The more details you think about, the more ridiculous this seems.

[Zalatix]

60. Then I challenge you make good on that. Go find a city slicker and send them out there to do it.

You must at least have a basic knowledge of what berries are edible and many city slickers do not have that. And I do gardening - it is not easy and if you are not educated about gardening you have a good chance of failing.

[Motown_Johnny]

61. get me a time machine and send me back to the late 1800s

and I would be happy to


Well, that or go talk to an Eagle Scout.


BTW, I am a landscaper. I know far more about gardening than you ever will. This insane statement of yours should be evidence enough that you just have no idea what you are talking about.

[Zalatix]

63. First, your timeline is WAY off. In "Atlas Shrugged" there were jet planes.

Show me a jet plane that flew in the 1800's.

[Motown_Johnny]

64. I said I never read it

OK, so when is it set then? The 50's?

It doesn't matter, my point is still valid.

[Rex]

31. But you make THE POINT about anyone

that believes in the Ann Rand crap paradise...the main, key, details are left out of the equation. That is the MO of how the GOP works.

[Shankapotomus]

35. The final result of Ayn Rand's philosophy is

humanity becomes a solitary species. Since Ayn Rand's philosophy basically advocates severing relationships with all people who are of no use to you, as people became of no use to each other (as all people eventually do), Galt's Gulch would have eventually broken further and further up until they were all nothing but solitary individuals, each on their own, a solitary species. That's the end point of Rand's philosophy except even solitary species' are able to reproduce and raise their young.

(Ayn Rand herself said she could see no rational reason to raise children so, people from Galt's Gulch would not have a rational reason to restock their population. ) Humanity would go extinct.

The fact is humanity is a family. We have our achievers and our slackers but, just like a real family, you try to keep it together and get better, nonetheless.

[stevenleser]

38. My preferred critique of Galt's Gulch is that of the motor that supposedly provides its power

It's clear why Rand used the motor developed by Galt in the book. She tried to create this metaphor of stopping the motor of the world by removing the industrial capitalists and the motor itself created by Galt. The metaphor is pretty weak and superficial without analyzing the impossible physics of the motor. She also needed it because without it, there is nothing powering Galt's Gulch and it becomes an unviable enterprise.

Standard power systems are impossible, because they require large mining operations, shipping/trucking to get the coal or oil or gas to where it needs to go (in 1957 renewable energy sources werent really viable on a large scale), etc. and of course, that is not possible because the Gulch is cut off from the rest of the world.

The solution is this impossible motor that magically captures static electricity from the air.

I talk about that and other critiques of Rand in this video:

[Shankapotomus]

39. Great post!

and critique of AS!

[stevenleser]

46. Thank you!

[JackRiddler]

44. Really? The book's hero has a perpetual motion machine?

So it's an SF book? I'm glad she could acknowledge that her fantasy was unreal and impossible.

(I did read The Fountainhead and no one was going to make me read 4 x The Fountainhead!)

[stevenleser]

54. Technicially, Galt's motor is not an example of a perpetual motion machine

As wikipedia states, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion a machine like Galts (if it worked) or a machine that uses the action of ocean tides can appear to be a perpetual motion machine but does not actually fit the definition if an external energy source like the ocean, (or the atmosphere's static electricity) is used and thus they are not closed systems.

On Edit: This does not make the motor any less of a work of science fiction, only that the fiction is not based on the problems of a perpetual motion machine, i.e. the laws of thermodynamics, etc.

[JackRiddler]

56. Okay, the point being...

Rand's utopia that reflects the supposed true natural order needs an unlimited source of energy to gain plausibility.

[stevenleser]

57. Yes, not only unlimited, but impossibly easy to create

What is easier than a machine that you turn on, put nothing in it and it magically extracts electricity from the air that you then distribute to your neighbors' buildings.

[maggiesfarmer]

45. Uhh, wrong. the mot fatal flaw in Atlas Shrugged is the perpetual motion machine.

the economic model was based on the laws of physics being violated

[stevenleser]

55. See my #54

[reACTIONary]

72. I like daring libertarians to head off to "Galt's Gulch" without me and not to forget...

...to bring along their electrostatic motor in order to suck electricity out the air!